AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2026
Impact of Spatial Resolution on CT Imaging of Middle Ear Prostheses: Comparison of Photon-Counting and Energy-Integrating Detectors.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sadeghian Maryam, Benson John C, Farnsworth Paul J, Lane John I, Treb Kevin J, Khandalavala Karl R, Babajanian Eric E, Bruesewitz Michael R, Swicklik Joseph R, McCollough Cynthia H, Carlson Matthew L, Leng Shuai
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: CT imaging of submillimeter middle ear prostheses-vital for postsurgery treatment-requires high spatial resolution. This study evaluated the impact of spatial resolution for the visualization of prostheses using photon-counting detector (PCD) CT, energy-integrating detector (EID) CT, and EID-CT with attenuating comb filters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one middle ear prostheses of different makes were placed within a head phantom and scanned on a PCD-CT (NAEOTOM Alpha), 2 dual-source CTs with comb filters (Force and Flash), and a dual-layer CT without comb filter (7500). Scanning and reconstruction followed clinical temporal bone protocols for each scanner, with a matched 120 kV and 80 mm FOV; sharp kernels/algorithms of Qr89, Ur77, Ur77, and YD; and minimal allowable slice thickness of 0.2, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.67 mm, respectively. Qualitative assessments were performed, including visual inspection, volume rendering, a blind reader study, and quantitative assessments using line profiles, and full width at half maximum (FWHM). One prosthesis was implanted in human cadaver head and scanned on a PCD-CT (NAEOTOM Alpha), a third-generation dual-source (Force), and a dual-layer CT (7500) following the same phantom study protocols. Image quality was compared among the scanners.
RESULTS: PCD-CT provided images with the highest spatial resolution, allowing clinically relevant assessment of prosthesis position. EID-CT scanners with comb filters provided good results, with noticeable loss of detail, while EID-CT without a comb filter showed substantial resolution loss. These findings were consistent across readers (Kendall W = 0.89; P < .001) and validated by the line profiles and FWHM measurements. PCD-CT showed a 49.5% improvement over EID-CT without comb filter. Among scanners with ultra-high-resolution capabilities, PCD-CT had lower radiation dose (CTDIvol: 31.5 versus 46.7 and 51.4 mGy) and lower noise (81.3 versus 93.0 and 274.8 Hounsfield Units (HU) compared with 2 EID-CTs with comb filters. In the cadaver study, PCD-CT provided higher resolution and lower noise than both EID-CT scanners with and without comb filters (67.6 versus 118.6 and 50.1 HU).
CONCLUSIONS: PCD-CT provided dose-efficient, accurate evaluation of ossicular prostheses, without the degradation of submillimeter structures, while maintaining lower dose and noise.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one middle ear prostheses of different makes were placed within a head phantom and scanned on a PCD-CT (NAEOTOM Alpha), 2 dual-source CTs with comb filters (Force and Flash), and a dual-layer CT without comb filter (7500). Scanning and reconstruction followed clinical temporal bone protocols for each scanner, with a matched 120 kV and 80 mm FOV; sharp kernels/algorithms of Qr89, Ur77, Ur77, and YD; and minimal allowable slice thickness of 0.2, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.67 mm, respectively. Qualitative assessments were performed, including visual inspection, volume rendering, a blind reader study, and quantitative assessments using line profiles, and full width at half maximum (FWHM). One prosthesis was implanted in human cadaver head and scanned on a PCD-CT (NAEOTOM Alpha), a third-generation dual-source (Force), and a dual-layer CT (7500) following the same phantom study protocols. Image quality was compared among the scanners.
RESULTS: PCD-CT provided images with the highest spatial resolution, allowing clinically relevant assessment of prosthesis position. EID-CT scanners with comb filters provided good results, with noticeable loss of detail, while EID-CT without a comb filter showed substantial resolution loss. These findings were consistent across readers (Kendall W = 0.89; P < .001) and validated by the line profiles and FWHM measurements. PCD-CT showed a 49.5% improvement over EID-CT without comb filter. Among scanners with ultra-high-resolution capabilities, PCD-CT had lower radiation dose (CTDIvol: 31.5 versus 46.7 and 51.4 mGy) and lower noise (81.3 versus 93.0 and 274.8 Hounsfield Units (HU) compared with 2 EID-CTs with comb filters. In the cadaver study, PCD-CT provided higher resolution and lower noise than both EID-CT scanners with and without comb filters (67.6 versus 118.6 and 50.1 HU).
CONCLUSIONS: PCD-CT provided dose-efficient, accurate evaluation of ossicular prostheses, without the degradation of submillimeter structures, while maintaining lower dose and noise.